Understanding Key Concepts in U.S. Law and Constitution
Explore various legal scenarios and foundational principles in the U.S. legal system, such as equality in sentencing, interpretation of the constitution, societal obligations, and the roles of different government branches. Dive into historical contexts, the Supreme Court's role in shaping legal precedents, and the significance of federalism in the U.S. governance structure.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
HYPO 1 2 20 YEAR OLD MALES COMMIT THE EXACT SAME CRIME IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF BALTIMORE. EACH ROBS A 7/11 OF $275 USING A KNIFE. ONE SON OF INNER CITY SINGLE MOM, OTHER WEALTHY LAWYER. DO THEY RECEIVE THE SAME SENTENCE ? HYPO 2 ASSUME CRAZY STATE HAS A RULE THAT 3 FELONY CONVICTIONS = LIFE IMPRISONMENT. ASSUME DEFENDANT DOES THE FOLLOWING (ALL FELONIES IN STATE): 1. $ 150 VISA CHARGE OVER THE CREDIT LIMIT; 2. BOUNCES A $ 50 CHECK 3. STEALS A CHICKEN IF A STATE S COURTS SEND HIM TO JAIL FOR LIFE, SHOULD USSC OVERTURN THE DECISION ?
HARD CASES MAKE BAD LAW - O W HOLMES SHOULD THE USSC BE MORE CONCERNED WITH DOING JUSTICE IN A PARTICULAR CASE OR BE CONCERNED WITH PRECEDENT AND GUIDANCE FOR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY ? IN DEALING WITH A HARD CASE, WOULD YOU PREFER A MEMO ON THE LAW OR A MEMO ON THE JUDGE S PERSONALITY, VALUES AND BACKGROUND ?
WHAT IS SOCIETYS OBLIGATION TO THOSE LEAST ABLE TO HELP THEMSELVES ? SOCIAL WELFARE v SOCIAL DARWINISM - 2016 ? 2016 CONSTITUTION INTERPRET GIVEN MEANING WHEN WRITTEN OR FLEXIBLE DOCUMENT INTERPRETED THROUGH CONTEMPORARY VALUES ? JUDICIAL ACTIVISM (TAKE A LOT OF CASES) v JUDICIAL RESTRAINT (TAKE FEWER CASES)
MY APPROACH: 1. HISTORY ESPECIALLY 1937 NEW DEAL, GROWTH OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND SOCIALISM. EXAM IS 2016 LAW HISTORY HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND MODERN RULES. 2. USSC CONCERNED WITH NEXT CASE IN DISTRICT COURTS GUIDANCE/PRECEDENT. 3. USSC CASES END OF THE STORY. REWIND AND DECIPHER ARGUMENTS BEFORE DC CASE STARTED.
US CONSTITUTION : AS THE CONVENTION TRIED TO BALANCE COMPETING INTERESTS, THINGS WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT WERE UNANIMOUS CONCERNS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS: 1. PROTECTION NATIONAL MILITARY 2. FEAR A KING SEPARATION OF POWERS WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 3. ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENT - FEDERALISM 4. NATION = SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIT RESIDUARY (STATES) v ENUMERATED (FEDERAL)
CONSTITUTION DEALS WITH 3 ENTITIES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (MOST), STATES AND CITIZENS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (CREATING RULES) 1. LEGISLATURE ART. I, SEC 7, AND 8 2. EXECUTIVE ART II, SEC 1, 2 AND 3 3. JUDICIARY ART III, SEC 1 AND 2 LEGISLATIVE 1. MOST POWERFUL BRANCH MAKE LAW
2. SEC 7 HOW TO MAKE LAW MAJORITY OF BOTH CHAMBERS WITH PRESIDENT, 2/3 OF BOTH CHAMBERS TO OVERRIDE PRESIDENTIAL VETO. 3. CAN CONGRESS PASS A LAW ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL PROCESS FOR DIVORCE ? SEC 8 IF NOT A TOPIC LISTED THERE, CONGRESS CAN T DO IT. EVERY STATUTE MUST BE TRACED BACK. ESSENTIALLY ALL RELATED TO DEFENSE OR NATION AS SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIT. 4. AT END OF SEC 8, NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE. WHAT DOES IT MEAN ? DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED POWERS EXPANDING EXPRESS POWERS.
5. SEC 10 COMPLIMENTS SEC 8 THINGS THE STATES MAY NOT DO : 1. NO FOREIGN RELATIONS 2. NO MONEY 3. NO BORDERS OR IMPORT/EXPORT FEES 4. NO MILITARY 5. NO TITLES OF NOBILITY
EXECUTIVE OBAMA AND GUN CONTROL VALID ? 1. SEC 1, 2 AND 3 JOB DESCRIPTION OF MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN WORLD. A. COMMANDER IN CHIEF B. FOREIGN AFFAIRS (AMBASSADORS, TREATIES, ETC) C. APPOINT EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WITH SENATE APPROVAL D. FAITHFULLY EXECUTE LAWS E. EXECUTIVE POWER VESTED IN EVERYTHING PRESIDENT DOES MUST BE TRACED BACK TO ONE OF THESE POWERS. EQUIVALENT OF NECESSARY AND PROPER = EXEC POWER, SEC 1
JUDICIAL LITIGATION CHOICE FEDERAL OR STATE COURT ? CAN YOU FILE A CASE IN FEDERAL COURT INVOLVING A CAR ACCIDENT BETWEEN 2 MARYLAND DRIVERS ? CAN YOU FILE A CASE IN FEDERAL COURT INVOLVING A CAR ACCIDENT BETWEEN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA DRIVERS ? $$$ CAN YOU FILE A CASE IN FEDERAL COURT INVOLVING A MARYLAND POLICEMAN BEATING A MARYLAND RESIDENT ?
HOW MANY JUSTICES ARE THERE ON THE USSC ? 1. SEC 2, FIRST PARA. POWER = THE KINDS OF CASES FEDERAL SYSTEM CAN HEAR. EXCLUSIVE ? DISCRETION IN CONGRESS. LIKE ART 1, SEC 8 FOR LEGISLATURE. 2. SEC 2, SECOND PARA. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION USSC CAN HEAR CASE FIRST NO LOWER COURT. MUST IT HEAR IT FIRST ? DISCRETION IN USSC.
3. APPELLATE JURISDICTION A. WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS CONGRESS MAY MAKE. CAN CONGRESS SAY USSC CAN T HEAR ABORTION CASES ? B. APPEALS FROM WHAT ? SEC 1 INFERIOR COURTS AS CONGRESS MAY FROM TIME TO TIME CONSTITUTION CLEARLY GRANTS CONGRESS CONTROL OVER JUDICIARY DOES EXECUTIVE HAVE POWER OVER JUDICIARY ?
EXECUTIVE POWER OVER JUDICIARY 1. APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES WITH CONSENT OF SENATE. 2. ENFORCEMENT. NIXON TAPES HYPO. WHAT POWER DOES JUDICIARY HAVE OVER OTHER BRANCHES ? JUDICIAL REVIEW FROM WHERE ? LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH ?
STATES 1. PRE 1930 s, STATES MUCH BIGGER IN TERMS OF POWER OVER INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS. 2. ART IV, SEC 1 AND 2 - FEDERAL HOUSEKEEPING THINGS NEEDED TO MAKE THE COUNTRY A NATION - FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITY AND EXTRADITION. 3. ART VI, PARA 2 SUPREMACY CLAUSE. NOTE STATE JUDGES BOUND STATE JUDGES DOING SOMETHING ON FEDERAL LAW.
IF STATE COURT DECIDES A FEDERAL ISSUE, CAN YOU APPEAL TO USSC ? WHERE DOES CONSTITUTION SAY IT ? SINCE IT IS AN APPEAL TO USSC, DO YOU NEED A CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE AUTHORIZING IT ? GOVERNOR FAUBUS IN ARKANSAS. BROWN V BD OF ED COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IF PRESIDENT DOESN T SEND IN TROOPS, WHAT HAPPENS ? IF PRESIDENT DOES SEND IN TROOPS AND GOVERNOR DOESN T BACK DOWN, WHAT HAPPENS ?
AMENDMENT X EMBODIMENT OF CONCEPT THAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS LIMITED TO POWERS GRANTED IN THE DOCUMENT. STATES ARE PLENARY OR RESIDUAL EVERYTHING NOT EXPLICIT IN THE DOCUMENT REMAINS IN THEM. AMENDMENT XI - A STATE CANNOT BE SUED BY AN OUT OF STATE PLAINTIFF IN FEDERAL COURT. CITIZENS ARTICLE I, SEC 9 - HABEUS CORPUS BILL OF ATTAINDER EX-POST FACTO LAW
AMENDMENTS 1 8 - DO THESE RIGHTS APPLY TO THE STATES ? AS WRITTEN ? BARRON v BALTIMORE. AMENDMENT 14 INCORPORATION APPLIES TO STATES THROUGH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.
LIMITS CASE OR CONTROVERSY ADVISORY OPINION STANDING * MOOTNESS RIPENESS ARTICLE III, SEC 2 - WORD PRECEDES EACH GRANT OF POWER. NO DIFFERENCE FOR US BETWEEN CASE AND CONTROVERSY ASSUME THEY BOTH MEAN CASE.
CONSTITUTIONAL - FEDERAL COURT HAS NO POWER TO HEAR THE LAWSUIT NOT A CASE AS THE CONSTITUTION ENVISIONED IT. PRUDENTIAL - FEDERAL COURT HAS THE POWER TO HEAR IT, BUT NOT A GOOD IDEA TO DO SO. WOULDN T BE PRUDENT TO HEAR IT. FACTORS: 1. VOLUME 2. ADVERSARIAL 3. JUDICIAL ACTIVE (DISLIKE) v JUDICIAL RESTRAINT (LIKE) 4. RIGHT WRONGS (DISLIKE) OR DECIDE CASES (LIKE) 5. CONGRESS
ADVISORY OPINIONS COURT ANSWERING HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS. DO STATE COURTS DO IT ?
1. 34-35 - JOHN JAY REFUSING TO ANSWER WASHINGTON S QUESTION REGARDING TREATY IMPLICATIONS. 2. EFFICIENCY v ADVERSARY SYSTEM ? 3. NOT BINDING. IF IGNORED, LOWER POWER AND PRESTIGE OF USSC. 4. MAY RESOLVE BY AVOIDING CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 5. 35 RULE AND POLICY QUOTES
COULD USSC GIVE ADVISORY OPINIONS IF IT WANTED TO DO SO ? DECLARATORY JUDGEMENTS - THOUGHT FOR DECADES TO BE ADVISORY OPINIONS. CHANGE IN 1930 S A) LIKE INJUNCTION AND B) C AND C CONCERNED WITH SUBSTANCE NOT FORM. OK AS LONG AS ADVERSARIAL AND NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
STANDING DO THE PARTICULAR PARTIES HAVE A SUFFICIENT PERSONAL STAKE IN THE LITIGATION ? IS THIS A PROBLEM IN NORMAL TORTS OR CONTRACTS LAWSUIT ? MODERN PROBLEM IN GROWING FEDERAL ACTIVITY AND RIGHTS. CITIZEN HAS A GENERAL PROBLEM WITH A GOVERNMENT ACTION OR A HARM AS A TAXPAYER. 1. GOVERNMENT $$$ TO RELIGIOUS SCHOOL 2. CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE NOT LISTED ART 1, 8
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS (37): 1. ACTUAL INJURY - INDIVIDUALIZED 2. CAUSAL CONNECTION 3. LIKELY TO BE REDRESSED PRUDENTIAL STANDARDS (48): 1. NO THIRD PARTY 2. NO GENERALIZED GRIEVANCES 3. P = ZONE OF INTERESTS WHAT IF CONGRESS GRANTS STANDING IN STATUTE ?
LUJAN v DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE (1992 - 36) SPLITS ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT DEPT OF INTERIOR INTERPRETS AS ONLY US AND SEAS DC AND C OF A FOR P. EGYPT NILE CROCIDILE; SRI LANKA ASIAN ELEPHANT AND LEOPARD SCALIA 7 - 2 1. 37 CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS INJURY, CONNECTION AND REDRESSABILITY. 2. 38 NOT INGENIOUS. LOWER COURTS WOULD GIVE EVERYONE STANDING 3. NO REDRESSABILITY - FOREIGN
4. 39 - ESA CITIZEN SUIT SOME OK BUT NO TO GENERAL INTEREST IN HAVING EXECUTIVE FOLLOW PROCEDURES. 5. GENERALIZED INTEREST BENEFITS P NO MORE THAN PUBLIC. CONGRESS CAN T TRANSFER FROM PRESIDENT TO THE COURTS THE POWER TO ENFORCE THE LAWS. 6. IF CONGRESS GRANTS STANDING, ONLY DENY IF VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL, NOT PRUDENTIAL.
KENNEDY AND SOUTER (C) CONGRESS CAN GRANT STANDING, BUT MUST IDENTIFY INJURY AND CLASS OF P WHO CAN SUE. NOT JUST GENERAL INTEREST IN ENFORCE STEVENS (C) ON MERITS CONGRESS DIDN T INTEND TO APPLY TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES BLACKMAN AND O CONNOR (D) COURTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENFORCE MANDATED PROCEDURES. SLASH AND BURN.
MASS. v EPA (2007 - 41) NEW CAR CARBON EMISSIONS EPA NOT ENFORCING CLEAN AIR ACT. COASTLINE. HOW MUCH CARBON DOES US PRODUCE ? STEVENS (5 4) 1. NOT PQ, ADVISORY OR MOOT 2. 42 - 3 CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 3. STANDING APPLIES LESS STRINGENTLY TO STATES
4. INJURY LOSS Of COASTLINE 5. CAUSAL US PRODUCES CO2 6. REDRESS CAN BE INCREMENTAL ROBERTS + 3 (D) JOB OF CONGRESS AND EXECUTIVE, NOT COURTS. GLOBAL WARMING IS COMPLEX WEB CHINA AND INDIA
OFFICE BEFORE CASE FILED: 1. CAN BE FILED IN FEDERAL COURT ? 2. WHICH FEDERAL COURT ? 3. LUJAN HOW DEAL WITH IT ? A. ASK TO OVERRULE ? OR B. ASK TO DISTINGUISH ? IF B, HOW ? C. IS LUJAN A SOFT OR HARD DECISION ?
CONSTITUTIONAL PERSONAL INJURY 45 NOT NECESSARILY ECONOMIC; FUTURE (CONCRETE, PROBABLE) CAUSATION 42 ALLEN v WRIGHT (1984 - 46) IRS TAX EXEMPTION TO RACIST SCHOOLS INJURY NOT FAIRLY TRACEABLE TO GOVERNMENT. DISCRIMINATING PRIVATE SCHOOLS NOT GETTING DEDUCTION. UNSURE IF SCHOOLS WOULD CHANGE IF DENIED TAX EXEMPTION.
REDRESSABILITY 47 FOCUS ON INJURY AND RELIEF REQUESTED. CAUSATION LOOKS TO CONDUCT AND INJURY. PRUDENTIAL THIRD PARTY 48 1. CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN P AND THIRD PARTY. 2. THIRD PARTY HAS GENUINE OBSTACLE
GENERALIZED GRIEVANCE 48 TAXPAYER SUITS - GENERALLY NO FROTHINGHAM v MELLON. NARROW EXCEPTION FLAST v COHEN 1. ART I, SEC 8 SPENDING (CITIZENS UNITED NOT PROPERTY CLAUSE) 2. SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION (HEIN ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE) ARIZONA CHRIST. v WINN (49) STATE TAXPAYER TOO SPECULATIVE ON INJURY AND CAUSATION. US v RICHARDSON CIA $ - ART I, SEC 9 PUBLIC SCHLESINGER v RESERVISTS ARI I, SEC 6, CL 2 CAN T BE IN CONGRESS AND BE OFFICER. NO CITIZEN STANDING.
NO STANDING EVEN IF NO POSSIBLE P (PRESIDENT AGE (35) + RESIDENCE, NATURAL BORN) ZONE OF INTEREST 50 BENNETT v SPEAR ESA HALTS DAM. RANCHER SUES TO GET DAM. ZONE MORE FLEXIBLE SINCE PRUDENTIAL. SATISFIES CONSTITUTIONAL. CONGRESSIONAL GRANT 50 VERMONT v US STATUTE ALLOWED PRIVATE P TO SUE FRAUDULENT CONTRACTORS. STANDING ALLOWED ASSIGNMENT OF FEDERAL CLAIM.
FEC v AKINS - VOTERS CHALLENGING FEC FAILURE TO TREAT AIPAC AS POLITICAL. STANDING OK 1. IF CONGRESS GRANTS STANDING, CAN T USE PRUDENTIAL, ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL 2. INJURY SHARED IN COMMON CAN STILL BE CONCRETE AND AN INJURY IN FACT. LEGISLATOR STANDING 52 RAINES v BYRD AGAINST LINE ITEM VETO. DC MEMBER STANDING ON DILUTED VOTE AND LAWMAKING AFFECTED. NO STANDING - NO INDIVIDUAL INJURY AND INSTITUTIONAL INJURY WIDELY DISBURSED. (LATER INJURED P ALLOWED)
2016 USSC POLITICS LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE GINSBURG SCALIA SOTOMAYOR THOMAS KAGAN ALITO BREYER ROBERTS KENNEDY
CLAPPER v AMNESTY INTL (2013 - S1) STATUTE ALLOWS US TO CONDUCT SURVEILLANCE ON NON US PERSONS OUTSIDE US. P = US PERSONS WHOSE WORK REQUIRES COMMUNICATIONS WITH LIKELY TARGETS. ALITO (5-4) 1. FUTURE INJURY TOO SPECULATIVE TO SATISFY CERTAINLY IMPENDING. 2. EVEN IF INJURY, NOT FAIRLY TRACEABLE.
3. ALTERNATIVE CURRENT INJURY ON INCURRING COSTS. NO CAN T MFG STANDING ON HYPO FUTURE HARM. 4. REJECT SECOND CIRCUIT S OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD AND REASSERT CERTAINLY IMPENDING . TOO LONG A CHAIN. 5. P ONLY SPECULATING ON WHAT GOV T WILL ACTUALLY DO. CAN T SATISFY FAIRLY TRACEABLE 6. NO POSSIBLE P IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR STANDING. HERE REVIEW BY FISA COURT.
BREYER + 3 (D) GINSBURG SOTOMAYOR AND KAGAN 1. CLEARLY INTERCEPTING PHONE AND EMAILS = INJURY. QUESTION IS ACTUAL OR IMMINENT 2. GOV T MOTIVE AND PAST PRACTICES AND CAPACITY = STRONG LIKELIHOOD. US LAWYER, JOURNALIST OR HUMAN RIGHTS WORKER AT RISK. 3. ALL AGREE CERTAINTY IS NOT THE STANDARD. REASONABLE OR HIGH PROBABILITY IS.
HOLLINGSWORTH v PERRY (2013 - S 6) PROP 8 MARRIAGE = MAN + WOMAN. CALIF OFFICIALS REFUSED TO DEFEND BUT DO ENFORCE. D = PROPONENTS OF PROP 8. DC ADDED PROPONENTS AS D AND HELD PROP 8 INVALID. OFFICIALS REFUSED TO APPEAL. NINTH CIR ASKED CALIF SC THEY SAID PROPONENTS AUTHORIZED TO ASSERT STATE S INTEREST. C OF A GRANTED STANDING AND DECLARED PROPOSITION 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ROBERTS 1. D HAD NO DIRECT STAKE IN THE OUTCOME OF THEIR APPEAL. D NOT ORDERED TO DO OR REFRAIN FROM DOING ANYTHING.
2. D CLAIMS SPECIAL STATUS UNDER CALIF LAW. TRUE BUT ONLY TO ENACTING, NOT ENFORCING. NO PARTICULARIZED INJURY ONLY A GENERAL ONE. NO STANDING TO APPEAL. D PRIVATE WITH NO REAL TIES TO STATE GOVERNMENT. NO REAL PRECEDENT. KENNEDY + 3 (D) THOMAS, ALITO AND SOTOMAYOR CALIF LAWS ALLOWS. LIMITED GROUP CONCRETE INJURY. MAJORITY SAYS NO TIE TO STATE GOVERNMENT BUT CA SC SAID YES. DECISION UNDERMINES CALIF INITIATIVE EXECUTIVE HAS A VETO IF DECIDE NOT TO DEFEND. VIGOROUS DEFENSE NOT AN ISSUE. POLITICS CONFUSED DC OK PROP 8 INVALID
US v WINDSOR (2103 - S 11) 2 WOMEN VALIDLY MARRIED IN CANADA. RECOGNIZED IN NY. SURVIVOR CHALLENGES FEDERAL ESTATE TAX. P ALLEGES DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AG DECIDES TO ENFORCE BUT NOT DEFEND IN DC. BALG WILLING TO DEFEND IN DC. DC AND COF A ALLOWED AND DECLARED DOMA INVALID KENNEDY 1. ENFORCEMENT CLEARLY INJURES P DENIED REFUND. ALLOW STANDING. AMICUS WILL FIGHT EVEN IF EXEC WILL NOT. EXTRAORDINARY POSITION WHEN EXECUTIVE BELIEVES LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. BLAG AUTHORIZED BY HOUSE.
SCALIA + 2 (D) ROBERTS AND THOMAS 1. P AND GOVERNMENT AGREE LOWER COURTS CORRECT WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE ? 2. ARTICLE III REQUIRES NOT JUST INJURED P BUT ALSO A D WHO DENIES VALIDITY OF THE COMPLAINT. MAJORITY EAGER TO INVALIDATE. ALITO (C ON STANDING, D ON MERITS) BLAG WILL VIGOROUSLY DEFEND. HANDOUT CL1
MOOTNESS (TOO LATE) 53 ACTUAL CONTROVERSY MUST EXIST AT ALL STAGES OF LITIGATION TRIAL AND EACH APPELLATE REVIEW. SOMETHING OUTSIDE THE LEGAL SYSTEM HAS RESOLVED THE DISPUTE. MANY EXCEPTIONS (ABORTION). PRUDENTIAL ? RIPENESS (TOO EARLY) 54 - US v MITCHELL (1947 - CAN T CAMPAIGN) AND LAIRD v TATUM ( 1972 - ARMY SURVEILLANCE - BIG DATA ?). IS THIS SAME AS FUTURE INJURY UNDER STANDING ?
POLITICAL QUESTION (NOT C OR C BUT SEPARATION OF POWERS) DOCTRINE ACTUALLY ORIGINATED IN MARBURY v MADISON(1803) 3 4. 55 PRUDENTIAL - BEST LEFT TO OTHER BRANCHES TO DECIDE BAKER v CARR (1962 - 56) LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT ALWAYS THOUGHT TO BE PQ (COLGROVE v GREEN 1946) TENNESSEE NOT REAPPORTIONED SINCE 1901. ACRES NOT PEOPLE. DC AND C OF A NO STANDING
BRENNAN 1. 57 QUOTE. MODERN LAW SUMMARY. 2. EG = FOREIGN RELATIONS, RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT (LUTHER v BORDEN 1849 CHAOS ART 4, SEC 4) 3. HERE EQ PROTECTION = JUDICIAL STANDARDS. NOT ASSIGNED TO CO-EQUAL BRANCH.
FRANKFURTER + HARLAN (D) 1. NO REAL JUDICIAL STANDARDS OR REMEDIES 2. NO REAL PERSONAL INJURY JUST DISSATISFACTION WITH POLITICAL PROCESS. 3. 60-61 QUOTE 4. IN EFFECT, A GUARANTY CLAUSE CASE. VOTES COUNTED, NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH. TRULY A POLITICAL FIGHT. REYNOLDS v SIMS 1964 ONE MAN, ONE VOTE. STATE LEGISLATURES MUST BE BUILT ON POPULATION
POWELL v MCCORMACK (1969 - 62) ACP MET AGE(25), CITIZENSHIP (7) AND RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSE ELECTION. HOUSE REFUSED TO SEAT HIM FRAUD, EMBEZZLE, ETC CONSTITUTION SAYS HOUSE MAY JUDGE QUALIFICATIONS OF ITS MEMBERS (ART 1, SEC 5, CL 1). ARGUMENTS FOR ACP AND HOUSE ?
WARREN 1. IF CONSTITUTION GIVES HOUSE UNREVIEWABLE POWER, CASE OVER. IF NOT, THEN OTHER STRANDS OF PQ. 2. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY REVEALS ACP CORRECT CAN ONLY EXCLUDE FOR FAILURE TO MEET CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA. 3. DEMOCRACY PEOPLE CAN ELECT WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE. SILLY ? NEXT MOVE FOR HOUSE ?
WHAT HAPPENS IF DONT MEET CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA AND NO VOTE TO EXCLUDE ? UNDER AGE PRESIDENT ? GOLDWATER v CARTER (1979 - 62) TERMINATION OF TREATY WITH TAIWAN. ARGUMENTS FOR PRESIDENT, ARGUMENTS FOR GOLDWATER ?
